Florida’s appellate courts closed out 2025 and opened 2026 with a familiar message to trial courts and litigants alike: statutes mean what they say, due process still matters, and findings are not optional. A recent cluster of decisions spans parentage, injunctions, child support, time-sharing, and contempt—and together they offer a useful checklist of what must happen before an order will survive appellate review.
1. At-Home Insemination Is Not a Free Pass
Brito v. Salas, Nos. SC2024-1184, SC2024-1190 (Fla. Dec. 30, 2025)
In Brito, the Florida Supreme Court tackled whether Florida’s sperm-donor statute automatically terminates parental rights when conception occurs through at-home artificial insemination. The answer: no.
Section 742.14 provides for the automatic termination of parental rights for donors of sperm, eggs, or preembryos—but only in cases involving “artificial reproductive technology” as defined in section 742.13. That definition requires laboratory handling of eggs or embryos. At-home insemination does not qualify.
The Court conducted an extensive review of the statutory framework governing gestational surrogacy and assisted reproduction and made clear that courts may not stretch statutory definitions to cover situations the Legislature did not include.
Takeaway: If the statute doesn’t fit, courts can’t force it. Parentage determinations still depend on how conception actually occurred—not assumptions about donor status.
2. Surprise Injunctions Violate Due Process—But Deadlines Still Matter
Jad v. Abinuman, No. 5D2024-2775 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 2, 2026)
In Jad, the Fifth DCA agreed that the trial court violated due process by entering a temporary injunction for protection against stalking at a hearing where the respondent had not filed any pleading seeking an injunction. No notice, no request, no warning—no due process.
But the victory was short-lived. Because the appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the injunction. A later, timely appeal of an order denying a motion to vacate also failed because the briefing raised only conclusory arguments.
Takeaway: Even when the trial court gets it wrong, appellate deadlines are unforgiving. Due process violations don’t extend jurisdiction.
3. “Ability to Pay” Is Still Required—Every Time
Webking v. Webking, No. 1D2023-0771 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 31, 2025)
In Webking, the First DCA reversed a child support award, retroactive support, and a contempt finding because the trial court failed to make required findings that the father had the present ability to pay.
The court also clarified that provisions requiring parents to share extracurricular expenses apply only to activities agreed upon when the parties share parental responsibility.
Takeaway: Ability-to-pay findings are not a formality. Without them, child support and contempt orders won’t stand.
4. Preservation and Transcripts Still Matter on Appeal
Ortiz v. Sangalang, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 9714
The Fourth DCA affirmed a temporary order revoking timesharing where the appellant failed to preserve arguments at the trial level—and failed to provide a transcript. Without a record, the appellate court had no way to evaluate the claimed errors.
Takeaway: If it’s not raised below—or not in the record—it doesn’t exist on appeal.
5. Modification Requires a Real Change in Circumstances
Edwards v. Williams, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 9712
In Edwards, the appellate court reversed a modification of a long-distance parenting plan because the trial court made no finding that the alleged change in circumstances was material, substantial, and unanticipated.
Takeaway: Parenting plans can’t be modified just because circumstances are inconvenient. The statutory standard must be met—and stated.
Final Thought
Across all of these cases, the theme is consistent: process matters. Whether it’s statutory interpretation, notice, jurisdiction, preservation, or required findings, Florida appellate courts continue to remind trial courts and litigants that shortcuts rarely survive review.
Or, put more simply:
No notice, no findings, no transcript, no jurisdiction—no luck on appeal.